This was posted elsewhere and I feel it is important to get this info out since I did not see it on here.

What a bunch of BS for them to consider ruling against feeding raw foods... We seem to lose more and more of our freedoms these days. Certainly it should be the owner's choice as to what they can feed their pets.

Might be worth writing or calling them to give an opinion about this ruling, maybe we can get it changed?

Attention anyone that feeds raw meat pet food or manufacturers of raw meat pet foods...the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) is about to vote on a policy against the feeding of raw meat pet food. If you want to protect your rights to feed a raw meat pet food, I suggest you take action before this gets approved.

Dr. Amy Nesselrodt - veterinarian - first alerted me to this serious situation. She shared that at an upcoming meeting (August 2 or 3, 2012) the AVMA Council on Public Health and Regulatory Veterinary Medicine will vote to create a policy to "discourage the feeding to cats and dogs of any animal source protein that has not first been subjected to a process to eliminate pathogens because of the risk of illness to cats and dogs as well as humans."

Why would the AVMA initiate an official policy discouraging the feeding of raw pet food? What is this action based on?

It took two phone calls, but I eventually spoke with AVMA media relations Assistant Director Sharon Curtis Granskog (early Friday July 13, 2012). She explained the policy would be voted on by the board during the early August meeting. I asked if any veterinarian that works for Big Pet Food is on that board; not to her knowledge. I asked for a list of name of those voting (to confirm no veterinarian of Big Pet Food was on this board). I asked for the contact information of someone for pet owners to write to in order to express their opinion on this proposed policy. She promised to provide that information to me by end of day (Friday July 13). No information. No information Monday July 17. I left another voice mail message with Ms. Granskog on Tuesday 7/18. No return call, no email.

It certainly appears that the AVMA does not want pet owners involved in this decision.

Since the AVMA didn't bother to provide contact information for pet owners to reply to - as they promised - the following is contact information taken from the AVMA website. If you would like to contact the AVMA and express your opinion on the proposed policy against the feeding of raw meat pet foods -

General Email: avmainfo@avma.org (type in the subject line: AVMA Council on Public Health and Regulatory Veterinary Medicine)

My opinion...(and my message sent to AVMA)AVMA, all meat is dangerous. We, pet owners - and you, the voting delegates of AVMA - take a risk each time you pick up a package of ground beef or chicken legs at the grocery. Raw pet food is NO more dangerous than any trip to the meat department of any grocery across the country.

However, there is one significant difference...most all pet owners that feed a raw meat pet food are fully aware of the risk. They are educated pet food consumers and they understand the need to handle the food properly. Perhaps this is reason why there has never been an incident of human illness linked to a raw meat pet food.

But to the contrary of raw meat pet food, there HAS been numerous cases of human illness linked to a kibble pet food (in the U.S. and in Canada). If your true basis of this policy is concern of human or pet illness, the AVMA would not be taking a stance solely against raw meat pet foods. There is no medical evidence, and further, science proves raw meat in the grocery, rare meat on the grill, raw meat pet food, and kibble pet food ALL pose a similar risk to humans and pets.

Should you decide to pass the policy against raw meat pet foods, we (pet owners) will know why. It will be crystal clear. We'll know that Big Pet Food has bought and paid for this policy and your vote. Won't it be a sad day when a national veterinary organization proves they actually work for Big Pet Food instead of working to protect the health of animals.

Added after original post: Here is the concern...When/if a national veterinary organization takes the public stance raw pet foods are dangerous, lobby organizations (such as PFI representing all the big kibble manufacturers) could take this 'opinion' to law makers.

Their goal could be the future ban of all raw pet foods. Law makers, not knowing the truth about raw pet foods, would look solely at the opinion of AVMA and things could get out of hand quickly. Because there is no scientific foundation to base this policy on, and as well because the AVMA is seemingly trying to get this accomplished without much notice from pet owners (not responding to my queries) -

I am very concerned there is more than meets the eye behind this policy.

I, and many other veterinarians, will disagree that all feeders of raw food are fully aware of the risks. I've seen cases of suspected salmonella where the owner had no idea dogs weren't 100% resistant to it. Most other owners are totally unaware of the numerous studies showing increased shedding of pathogens in feces of raw fed animals.

This is policy passed by the Public Health department of the AVMA, they do not have any regulatory authority except to help direct veterinarians in their recommendations. If this passes, it will be much harder for me to recommend raw foods because it will now be considered against standard of care. It will not do anything to prevent raw feeding.

It is much more profitable for DVMs to be putting pets on medication or on special diets for a lifetime, just as it is more profitable for MDs to medicate issues rather than teaching people to eat a healthy diet, filled with healthy fats and low on processed foods.

Monte's vet commented that her business income took a huge hit when she switched to a holistic practice as she was no longer prescribing so many meds. She did mention she is much happier as a practitioner, despite the pay cut. She also recently switched to a raw diet for her dog who was recently diagnosed with cancer. This switch was made at the request of the dog's oncologist who'd seen great results in dogs with cancers.

{And, yes she is struggling with all the philosophies and online rumors, so don't feel bad if you've done the same. }

It is a shame that the AVMA doesn't recognize that it is limiting DVM's ability to choose the tool appropriate for the task. There is a time for drugs, a time for a scalpel, and a time for a change in nutritional strategy --- all should be part of the toolbox.

El_EmDubya wrote:It is much more profitable for DVMs to be putting pets on medication or on special diets for a lifetime, just as it is more profitable for MDs to medicate issues rather than teaching people to eat a healthy diet, filled with healthy fats and low on processed foods.

LMW

Bullpucky. I'd love to stop stocking prescription diets. They are not profitable, they take up a huge amount of space, are a pain in the patookas to keep stocked, and take up a lot of staff time. I'm in the business of practicing medicine, not sales.

The debate, if true (I cannot find verification or discussion on the vet boards) is based in science, and it is to protect the vast majority who do NOT understand the risks. There is a lot of evidence that raw feeding is risky and NONE that says raw is better than home cooked.

Sorry, I'm in the business of retail strategy and if the SqFt is allocated there is a reason, otherwise you'd be sending people to Petco. The real issue is the prescriptive diets create foot traffic, which creates cross-sell capabilities. Just as Flagship locations of major retailers are used to generate foot-traffic for smaller stores, vet retail products do the same...you don't have the business training to see how the parts come together.

I DO know what I'm talking about...and have worked in a vet's office, so I've seen the numbers.

El_EmDubya wrote:Sorry, I'm in the business of retail strategy and if the SqFt is allocated there is a reason, otherwise you'd be sending people to Petco. The real issue is the prescriptive diets create foot traffic, which creates cross-sell capabilities. Just as Flagship locations of major retailers are used to generate foot-traffic for smaller stores, vet retail products do the same...you don't have the business training to see how the parts come together.

I DO know what I'm talking about...and have worked in a vet's office, so I've seen the numbers.

I work at an emergency clinic... we don't need prescription diets to create foot traffic, and my cross-sale is medical advice and diagnostics. Your vet clinic must have been an entirely different ballgame than ours. Our SqFtage is about the same as a single exam room, and I guarrantee a 7th exam room would create more profit. There may be vets out there sending home i/d with every case of stomach upset and w/d with every obese pet, but I prescribe very little other than renal, liver, and limited ingredient diets. If the food companies could manage to make a proper limited diet (studies show 4 out of 5 are contaminated), I'd send those clients to petco no problem. After the 3 month diet trial, I often do. If there were pharmacies that could be trusted to fill prescriptions properly and pharmacists who understood animal medicine, I'd gladly send my prescription drugs elsewhere too. I suspect it will happen in the next 10 years.

July 18th, 2012by AVMA@Work EditorWe’ve been seeing a lot of misinformation about the proposed AVMA policy on raw or undercooked animal-source protein diets for pets that will be discussed and voted on at the AVMA House of Delegates (HOD) meeting in San Diego in August, so we feel the need to clear things up.

First of all, this proposed policy would be an AVMA policy if approved, not state or federal law. The AVMA cannot, and will not, regulate what pet owners choose to feed their pets. If you already feed raw food to your pet, that’s your choice. This proposed policy is about mitigating public health risks, not about restricting or banning any products. Our policies are intended to present the scientific facts, which in this case are: 1) Scientific studies have shown that raw and undercooked protein can be sources of infection with Salmonella, Campylobacter, Clostridium, E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, and enterotoxigenic Staphylococcus aureus. These infections can sicken pets and pet owners alike, and can be life-threatening; 2) unless a raw protein product has been subjected to a process that eliminates pathogens that can make pets and people ill, it poses a significant public health risk to both pets and pet owners.

Our policies are based on a thorough review of the scientific literature and are drafted by veterinarians with expertise in relevant fields (in this case, public health). If you’d like to read the proposed policy for yourself, here’s the exact document that will be considered by the HOD.

We realize that this issue is controversial. You are free to express your opinion, but please be aware that comments that are offensive, abusive, profane, or personal attacks will be removed.

Misskiwi67 wrote:The debate, if true (I cannot find verification or discussion on the vet boards) is based in science, and it is to protect the vast majority who do NOT understand the risks. There is a lot of evidence that raw feeding is risky and NONE that says raw is better than home cooked.

I'm sorry, but this is just total crap. 100%. I usually respect your opinion, but on this particular matter I think this is absolutely wrong in every way.

There are no larger "risks" with feeding raw than feeding kibble, at least in concern to bacteria, which is what this whole thing is about. Kibble has been PROVEN to contain salmonella. I don't see AVMA taking a stance against Diamond and warning people about risks with kibble even though numerous people were put in the hospital just a short while back. What about all the FDA warnings about pigs' ears and other chews being contaminated with salmonella? I guarantee you people are more careful handling raw meat than dry kibble or dog chews!

Not to mention that AVMA is conveniently not mentioning the "safe" raw foods like Stella and Chewy's or Nature's Variety that sterilize all their foods and test every batch to prove the foods are bacteria free. That doesn't even come up as an alternative, all raw food is being considered bad and scary. Show me the lots of evidence you're talking about that feeding raw food is "risky". I have yet to see any evidence at all that feeding raw is risky, barring nutritional deficiencies if someone isn't doing the diet properly. Which is NOT the issue AVMA is addressing.

Cooking is ridiculous. I say that as someone who cooks for one of my cats that won't eat raw. It's completely ridiculous. I cook the nutrients and natural fats out of the food so that I have to add them back in via synthesized vitamins/minerals and add in things like calcium when I could just be feeding fresh food and getting the nutrients from a natural source. It's stupid. Plus I still have to disinfect everything afterwards because- SURPRISE- the meat starts out raw! I'm still getting bacteria everywhere I have to get rid of! As a side note, cooked food diets give Riddle diarrhea and make her itchy, so clearly there IS a difference between it and raw.

I apologize that this came out so hostile. I didn't intend it to, but neither am I going to go back and change it. I AM upset about this issue, it hits a nerve with me. How dare AVMA try to tell us that raw, fresh foods are dangerous when kibble killed thousands of dogs and cats a scant few years ago. When different kibble companies are having recalls every few months. There has never been a recall of premade raw foods that has killed loads of pets or sent multiple people to the hospital, but all the problems the kibble companies have are being ignored while they're lighting torches, sharpening stakes, and coming for raw food. Give me a break.

I've spoken (via forum) to one of the AVMA board members in the public health division. This ruling is not going to change much, its a position statement, nothing more. I specificially asked if it would change my medical ability to coach and advise clients, and the answer is no. I'm grateful for that, because I think we have a lot to learn about dog/cat nutrition, and until there is a study comparing raw food vs. cooked, I'm going to withold judgement. However, we DO know that raw food is NOT safer. Its just different.

This is a PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT. It also includes recommendations to be careful when handling dry food, treats, and dog bowls. I've asked permission to share her comments to me, they explain the purpose much better, and its nothing as drastic as what people are imagining. The AVMA has much less power than you think it does.

If you read the links, there are multiple studies out there showing raw food kills pets too, and its dangerous to people too. People cook their food for a reason! The hidden dangers of dogs and cats that are asymptomatic shedders are the most concerning, and this is what they are most interested in creating awareness about.

Savage Destiny wrote:Show me the lots of evidence you're talking about that feeding raw food is "risky". I have yet to see any evidence at all that feeding raw is risky, barring nutritional deficiencies if someone isn't doing the diet properly. Which is NOT the issue AVMA is addressing.

You asked for it. The information is out there, and its not just one or two studies.

IntroductionRaw is natural, and natural is good, right? This FAQ looks at some of the questions and controversies concerning raw food diets to help make you a more informed veterinarian.

Clinical Use informationWhat is a raw food diet? Are there different types?What are the proposed benefits of a raw food diet?Have any of these benefits been documented/proven?What are the risks and concerns with raw food diets?Have any of these risks been documented/proven?Do the benefits or risks of feeding a raw food diet differ if the diet is commercially produced vs. home prepared?How should I advise my clients who are feeding raw food diets or who want to discuss trying this type of diet?

What is a raw food diet? Are there different types?There are many types of raw food diets, both commercial and home prepared. Raw food diets contain raw meat (+/- bones) and often plant ingredients (fruits, vegetables, and, much more rarely, grains). Recipes and guidelines for home prepared raw food diets are plentiful on the internet and in books (see "Other resources" below for some links to rational information about raw food diets).

What are the proposed benefits of a raw food diet?Advocates of raw food diets claim benefits ranging from improved longevity to superior oral or general health and even disease resolution (especially GI and dermatological disease). Thermolabile components, such as enzymes, vitamins and certain amino acids, are preserved in raw food diets. Enzymatic destruction is generally of little relevance, as many (but not all) enzymes are inactivated in the stomach by peptidases (pancreatic enzymes and lactase obviously survive transport through the stomach). Further, all necessary enzymes utilized for digestion of dietary components are made by the healthy gastrointestinal tract and pancreas. Additionally, no studies have demonstrated a benefit of preserved enzyme activity in raw food diets, other than the action of papain (extracted from papaya) on hair balls in humans, but not in rodents (Baker et al 2007, Krugner-Higby et al 1996). Conversely, no studies have refuted these claims.

In an unpublished study by Glasgow et al, cats fed a raw food diet subjectively found the diet more palatable, and had better hair coats and stool consistency after 10 months of feeding, which is consistent with what many owners report. No control group was described in this study, and the results have never been subjected to peer-review, so clinicians should view this information skeptically.

Have any of these benefits been documented/proven?Most commonly, purported benefits are restricted to testimonials, which are frequently posted on the internet. However, no published peer-reviewed studies exist that would support any claims made by raw food diet advocates, and no published studies have examined differences in animals fed raw animal products to those fed any other type of diet (kibble, canned, or home cooked). Those studies are currently in progress but findings have yet to be published.

What are the risks and concerns with raw food diets?The two credible concerns related to raw food feeding are food safety and nutritional adequacy. Food safety concerns relate to bacterial or parasitic contamination and the associated public health concerns (LeJeune 2001, Joffe and Schlesinger 2002, Finley et al. 2006). However, the nutritional adequacy and nutrient balance of both commercially available and home prepared raw food diets is also an important issue, particularly during growth. One study (Lauten et al 2005) determined nearly 70% of home-prepared diets were deficient or unbalanced in key nutrients. Certain essential minerals, especially calcium, zinc and choline, were often below NRC recommendations. In other recipes, the diets were unbalanced (i.e. contained all essential nutrients but one or more nutrients were included in disproportionate amounts within the recipe).

Nutritional inadequacy of a raw rabbit diet was reported in an undated, unpublished study funded by the Winn Foundation. Cats were fed raw ground frozen whole rabbit or a commercial diet for over 10 months. All cats in the raw food group had better stool consistency and coat quality (subjectively), BUT all developed taurine deficiency (and one died from heart failure secondary to DCM), despite laboratory analysis of the ground rabbit which indicated sufficient taurine content, although the authors did not state which laboratory standard or minimal requirement value was used. This study suggests that even "whole prey" dietary models may be inadequate for long-term feeding in cats. It is important to note that the taurine requirement for cats fed differing raw diets varies with the diets. This is important since the amount required for cats eating canned vs dry extruded diets differs. In general, 900 ppm taurine in raw food maintains normal plasma and whole blood taurine concentrations - thus, raw food diets should exceed 900ppm taurine (Kirk CA, unpublished data). Taurine metabolism is also affected by the gastrointestinal microflora, dietary ingredients, digestibility and processing, and probably other factors. Animal products vary widely in taurine content, and rodents are reportedly higher than lagomorphs (Spitze et al 03, Hedberg et al 07).

Have any of these risks been documented/proven?Raw animal products are well documented to be common sources of such pathogens (Doyle and Schoeni 1987, Samadpour et al. 1994, Mead et al. 1999, White et al. 2001, Zhao et al. 2001). In addition, Consumer Reports recently found that a very high percentage of chicken (over 80%) intended for human consumption, (some of it labeled organic) was contaminated with Campylobacter, while approximately 15% of the samples were contaminated with Salmonella (Consumer Reports, Jan 2007). Commercially available pet diets are not exempt from these issues; studies have demonstrated the presence of pathogenic bacteria in samples of several commercially available raw food diets (Freeman and Michel 2001, Strohmeyer et al. 2006, Weese et al. 2005). Further, pets eating contaminated raw food diets can shed pathogenic microorganisms and can become ill (Busch et al. 2007, Finley et al. 2007, Morley et al. 2006, Stiver et al. 2003). One study reported that 14% of fecal samples of dogs fed raw diets were contaminated with Salmonella, compared to no positive samples for dogs not fed raw foods (Lenz et al 09). The passage of pathogens from animals to humans has also been documented (Sato et al. 2000, Tauni and Osterlund 2000). Another study documented shedding of salmonella in "therapy" dogs (i.e., dogs that visit or work with sick, old or debilitated people) fed raw diets (Lefebvre et al 2008).

The nutritional adequacy of any home prepared diet, raw or otherwise, must also be considered. Issues of nutrient deficiencies in various recipes have been documented (Freeman and Michel 2001, Roudebush and Cowell, 2002, Streiff et al. 2002, Lauten et al. 2005). A report of two litters of pups fed a raw-food diet associated with nutritional osteodystrophy after just 4 weeks of feeding has been published (DeLay & Laing, 2002, Proceedings). More recently, Taylor et al documented nutritional disease in a puppy fed raw ground beef and an organic pre-mix (Taylor et al 2009). Not all raw food diets are necessarily imbalanced; however, any recipe should be analyzed by a qualified and experienced nutritionist (at least by computer) for nutritional adequacy before long-term feeding.

Do the benefits or risks of feeding a raw food diet differ if the diet is commercially produced vs. home prepared?There are very few commercially available raw food diets that have undergone animal feeding tests for nutritional adequacy, and many have also not been formulated to be complete and balanced. Regardless, many pet owners assume that all commercial products are adequate for long term feeding. Caution should be exercised when selecting commercially available raw food diets. Any diet with raw animal products (including both types of raw food diets) can carry the significant risk of bacterial contamination.

However, while some of these diets have been subjected to AAFCO feeding trials, the results of these trials are considered proprietary information and have not been published. Although some raw food proponents raise concerns about the validity of AAFCO trials in establishing nutritional adequacy of diets, it is prudent to ensure nutritional balance with proper formulation at the very least.

The FDA CVM published non-binding guidelines for the preparation of raw food diets for pets in 2002. These state that "The FDA does not believe raw meat foods are consistent with the goal of protecting the public from significant health risks, particularly when such products are brought into the home and/or used to feed domestic pets." Thus, the FDA expresses concerns about human health issues in preparing raw food diets, either at home, or commercially.

How should I advise my clients who are feeding raw food diets or who want to discuss trying this type of diet?It seems prudent for the veterinary practitioner to develop policies for accepting animals fed raw food diets as boarders or in-house patients because of zoonotic potential. (Fuller et al 2008, Lee et al 2008). Owners should be counseled on infectious disease risk and management (prompt removal and appropriate disposal of feces, etc). Additionally, a recently published veterinary perspective on the AVMA guidelines for the use of animals fed raw-food diets in health-care facilities stipulated that " animals that have been fed any raw or dehydrated (but otherwise raw) foods, chews or treats of animal origin within the past 90 days" should be excluded from health-care facilities, because of the risk of transmission of zoonotic organisms, such as salmonella and campylobacter (Lefebvre et al, 2008).

Dr Claudia Kirk advises clients interested in feeding raw food diets that "most, but not all, healthy adult animals will tolerate a raw food diet. Similarly, not all raw food diets are equivalent, or nutritionally sufficient to prevent problems. Recipes should be evaluated by a nutritionist, bones should be ground and never fed whole or in pieces and safe food handling practices are essential in minimizing risk of contamination. Finally, there are no clinically proven benefits of a raw-food diet, but there are documented hazards and risks. "

Clients should also be warned of the potential for intestinal perforation or obstruction by bones. Dental fractures can also occur as a result of chewing raw bones.

To me, this ruling changes nothing. Most vets will continue to advise against raw feeding (which they already do) and I will still continue to feed raw.

To me it's a no-brainer, *I* feel better when I eat fresh, unprocessed foods versus Power Bars all day so tell me why it's better for an animal, who has evolved eating unprocessed foods, to thrive more on a commercially prepared diet? Does. Not. Compute.

pacopoe wrote:To me, this ruling changes nothing. Most vets will continue to advise against raw feeding (which they already do) and I will still continue to feed raw.

To me it's a no-brainer, *I* feel better when I eat fresh, unprocessed foods versus Power Bars all day so tell me why it's better for an animal, who has evolved eating unprocessed foods, to thrive more on a commercially prepared diet? Does. Not. Compute.

I agree wholeheartedly. I, however, will continue to recommend home-cooked diets until raw is proven to be better than cooked. There are studies in progress, and I'm very much looking forward to those results, whatever they may be. If raw is proven to be better nutritionally, I hope the recommendation will be overcoming risk, rather than avoidance.

For those who do want to feed raw, I continue to recommend formulated diets (nature's variety medallions) due to the vast majority of improper diets I see in clinical practice.

Time and effort of cooking is not an excuse for the risks if the benefits are not proven. The benefits of whole, unprocessed foods are well documented, and home-cooking should not be discouraged, nor are there any plans to discourage this practice. This is NOT about supporting food companies.

When I was working at the San Diego Zoo, in endocrinology for the reproduction of endangered species, it was very clear to all the keepers and scientific staff that manufactured products don't produce healthy animals or offspring. This is why good zoos have moved away from kibble diets and toward high variety, natural (raw) based strategies.

This decision was as much about keeping vet costs low as the animals' and health high.

Ever heard of Pottenger's Cats? (http://www.amazon.com/Pottengers-Cats-A-Study-Nutrition/dp/0916764060) The research in this case is VERY CLEAR. Have you seen the autopsy photos of these cats? I have. If a minor change - going from raw milk to pasteurized in a group of Raw fed cats, for example - can be easily seen in the fur, muscle, and liver quality, what do you think a major change in diet will do? Cooking kills too many of the beneficial bacteria necessary for a healthy gut-->healthy nutrition --> healthy neurological system.

So, yes the work has already been done to prove raw is better.

When you think about what has happened to the health of our animals in the last 30 years, when the vast majority of pet and show quality dogs have been raised on manufactured/processed foods and antiseptic environments, it is no wonder we are seeing increases in allergies, behavioral issues (Brain-gut connection), and shortened lifespans. (Talk to old-time breeders if you disagree with me.)

We're seeing dramatically declining health in humans as well, not to mention the acceleration of medical costs related to long-term health issues including all those related to "metabolic syndrome". Those under 30 will be the first generation to die at a younger age than their parents, and much of this decline is nutritionally based.

So, what are the incentives for the AVMA to be pushing this agenda. It clearly isn't about saving "humans" as you've a greater chance of being hit by lightning than being killed by bacteria. So then what's the real issue? IMHO it gives average vets the ability to say they don't support feeding raw and they are backed by a large "smart" organization.

These organizations are just lobbies for the profession and are charged with fighting for territory, not in fighting for what is right. Obviously there must be some traction in the Raw Fed industry, otherwise this wouldn't even be an issue. The problem is that this bleeds into other things... Just take a look at what is happening in the Herbal Market in Europe. Doncha think Big Pharma loves the fact that power is being stripped from holistic practitioners?

But I do have hope. This is a BIG sign that someone at the top sees a trend. It is very similar to what the Corn Syrup lobby did regarding the campaign to promote HFCS as healthy. It is just a spin to deflect the majority and may end up back-firing as more people will hear that Raw is a "growing trend" and therefore an option.

El_EmDubya wrote:So, yes the work has already been done to prove raw is better.

Why a book instead of a peer-reviewed journal? My only assumption, particularly considering it was written by an MD who should well understand the necessity of proper systematic scientific review, is that it was not a valid scientific study.

These studies are in progress... we will see what the results show.

Until then, continue your conspiracy theories, they have no basis is science or fact.